HIV and Alcohol Research Priorities of City, State, and Federal Policymakers: Results of a Delphi Study

The screening and management of sleep disturbances in people living with HIV: Delphi consensus

Sleep disturbances in people living with HIV (PLHIV) are frequent but their management remains insufficient. In the absence of specific recommendations, a DELPHI consensus research project was conducted in France to establish best practice. A multidisciplinary Steering Committee (STC) undertook a literature review and used it with clinical expertise to create statements that were voted on. Two profiles of healthcare professionals with significant experience in monitoring PLHIV were selected for the voting: physicians and nurses/psychologists. Votes were collected electronically, independently, and anonymously. The STC created 27 statements covering six areas: Screening of sleep disturbances, Investigation, First-line management, Referral to a specialist, Antiretroviral treatment (ARV), and Prevention. Two rounds of votes included 42 physicians and 32 nurses/psychologists. Consensus was reached for 24 out of 27 statements (89%) including: to assess quantity and quality of sleep among PLHIV at least annually, ideally using a common methodology within the medical department; to consider the temporary addition of a hypnotic treatment in cases of acute insomnia not improved by the rules of sleep hygiene, with full awareness of potential drug-drug interactions and risk of dependence; to correct ferritinaemia if <100 ng/mL before referral to a specialist when restless legs syndrome is suspected; to consider changing the time of ARV administration or an ARV switch within the same class when sleep disturbances are caused by an ARV. This DELPHI Consensus provides best practice for screening and managing sleep disturbances in PLHIV and optimising their quality of life.

Use of genotypic HIV DNA testing: a DELPHI-type consensus

OBJECTIVES

As many disparities in the clinical use of HIV DNA sequencing are observed, a DELPHI-type consensus was initiated in France to homogenize use, techniques and interpretation of results.

METHODS

Based on a literature review and clinical experience, a steering committee (SC) of eight virologists and one infectious disease specialist formulated statements. Statements were submitted to an independent and anonymous electronic vote of virologists and HIV clinicians in France, between October 2022 and December 2022.

RESULTS

The SC developed 20 statements grouped into six categories: clinical situations for the use of HIV DNA genotyping; techniques for performing HIV DNA genotyping; consideration of apolipoprotein B mRNA editing enzyme (APOBEC) mutations; genotyping results reporting; recycling of antiretrovirals; and availability of HIV DNA genotyping tests and delays. Twenty-one virologists and 47 clinicians participated in two voting rounds and 18/20 (90%) assertions reached a 'strong' consensus. For example, that prior genotyping on HIV DNA is useful for clinical decision-making when considering switching to some long-acting regimens or to reduce the number of antiretroviral agents in virologically suppressed patients for whom RNA data are unavailable/not exploitable/not sufficiently informative. Two statements achieved no consensus: reporting any detected viral minority population for discussion in multidisciplinary meetings (virologists), and possible risk of virological failure when using a second-generation InSTI plus lamivudine or emtricitabine regimen in patients with undetectable viral load within ≥1 year and in the presence of a documented M184V mutation within the last 5 years (clinicians).

CONCLUSIONS

This DELPHI-type consensus will facilitate the strengthening and harmonization of good practice when performing HIV DNA sequencing.

Stakeholder engagement to inform HIV clinical trials: a systematic review of the evidence

INTRODUCTION

Stakeholder engagement is an essential component of HIV clinical trials. We define stakeholder engagement as an input by individuals or groups with an interest in HIV clinical trials to inform the design or conduct of said trials. Despite its value, stakeholder engagement to inform HIV clinical trials has not been rigorously examined. The purpose of our systematic review is to examine stakeholder engagement for HIV clinical trials and compare it to the recommendations of the UNAIDS/AVAC Good Participatory Practice (GPP) guidelines.

METHODS

We used the PRISMA checklist and identified English language studies describing stakeholder engagement to inform HIV clinical trials. Four databases (PubMed, Ovid, CINAHL and Web of Science) and six journals were searched, with additional studies identified using handsearching and expert input. Two independent reviewers examined citations, abstracts and full texts. Data were extracted on country, engagement methods, stakeholder types and purpose of stakeholder engagement. Based on the GPP guidelines, we examined how frequently stakeholder engagement was conducted to inform clinical trial research question development, protocol development, recruitment, enrolment, follow-up, results and dissemination.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Of the 917 citations identified, 108 studies were included in the analysis. Forty-eight studies (44.4%) described stakeholder engagement in high-income countries, thirty (27.8%) in middle-income countries and nine (8.3%) in low-income countries. Fourteen methods for stakeholder engagement were identified, including individual (e.g. interviews) and group (e.g. community advisory boards) strategies. Thirty-five types of stakeholders were engaged, with approximately half of the studies (60; 55.6%) engaging HIV-affected community stakeholders (e.g. people living with HIV, at-risk or related populations of interest). We observed greater frequency of stakeholder engagement to inform protocol development (49 studies; 45.4%) and trial recruitment (47 studies; 43.5%). Fewer studies described stakeholder engagement to inform post-trial processes related to trial results (3; 2.8%) and dissemination (11; 10.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings identify important directions for future stakeholder engagement research and suggestions for policy. Most notably, we found that stakeholder engagement was more frequently conducted to inform early stages of HIV clinical trials compared to later stages. In order to meet recommendations established in the GPP guidelines, greater stakeholder engagement across all clinical trial stages is needed.